JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. - The present revision has been filed against the order of the Tribunal dated September 26, 2009 passed in Second Appeal No. 155 of 2009, arising out of the proceeding initiated under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 relating to the assessment year 2009-10. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Alok Kumar, and learned standing counsel for the State, and upon agreement by both the counsel, the revision is being disposed of finally at this stage. The applicant is a partnership-firm and engaged in the business of transport of goods with its registered office at Kurub Road, Delhi. The applicant was assigned certain consignments from Delhi to Akola, Maharashtra. The said consignments were being transported in a truck with registration No. RJ-11-GA/0813 bound for Akola, Maharashtra. It has been submitted that none of the goods or any part of the consignments were meant for the State of U.P. The said consignments were covered by the relevant builties and proper bills. The said truck was intercepted while the same was passing through the State of U.P. at Agra near Fatehpur Sikri by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad. The goods were detained on the ground that there was some variation in the description and their quantity in respect of two builties. No dispute was raised regarding other loaded goods on the truck. It has also been submitted that at this stage, it may be relevant to note that it was not the case of the authorities that the said goods were found to be unloaded within the State of U.P. or the vehicle was not on the designated route or vehicle was still within the territory of U.P. even after expiry of four days. The learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Alok Kumar, has further submitted that the State Government has abolished the check-post established by it for checking and verification of goods in transit. A new system has been introduced by a circular of the Commissioner dated July 27, 2009 and July 30, 2009 (annexure No. 1 and 2) to enable free movement of goods in transit which were brought from outside of State of U.P. and were meant to be transported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. A new system has been introduced by a circular of the Commissioner dated July 27, 2009 and July 30, 2009 (annexure No. 1 and 2) to enable free movement of goods in transit which were brought from outside of State of U.P. and were meant to be transported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. Although, it is submitted that for the purpose of transit through the State specific provision has already been provided under the Value Added Tax Act and Rules. The relevant sections and Rules are quoted below : "Section 52. Issue of authorization for transit of goods through the State. - When a vehicle coming from any place outside the State and bound for any other place outside the State, and carrying goods referred to in sub-section (1) of section 51, passes through the State, the driver or other person-in-charge of such vehicle shall obtain in the prescribed manner an authorization for transit of goods from the officer-in-charge of the first check-post or barrier after his entry into the State and deliver it to the officer-in-charge of the last check-post or barrier before his exit from the State, failing which it shall be presumed that the goods carried thereby have been sold within the State by the owner or person-in-charge of the vehicle : Provided that the goods carried by such vehicle are, after their entry into the State, transported outside the State by any other vehicle or conveyance, the onus of proving that the goods have actually moved out of the State shall be on the owner or person-in-charge of the vehicle. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, the hirer of the vehicle shall also be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle. Rule 58. The transit of goods by road through the State. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, the hirer of the vehicle shall also be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle. Rule 58. The transit of goods by road through the State. - (1) The driver or person-in-charge of a vehicle carrying goods commencing journey from a place outside the State and destined for a place outside the State or the driver or person-in-charge of a vehicle which carries goods in the circumstances referred to section 52, shall present application in form XLIII in triplicate for issue of authorization for transit of goods to the officer-in-charge of check-post or barrier, if any, established near the point of entry into the State hereinafter called the entry check-post : Provided that where any goods are carried from outside the State by rail, river, air, post or courier at any place inside the State for transporting outside the State by road by a vehicle, the driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle which will carry goods outside the State shall present application in form XLIV in triplicate for issue of authorization for transit of goods to the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the place where the goods have been received by rail, river, air, post or courier. (2) The officer in-charge of the entry check-post or the assessing authority referred to in proviso to sub-rule (1), as the case may be, shall, after examining the documents and after making such enquiries as he deems necessary, specify on all the copies of the application for issue of transit authorization the check-post or barrier (hereinafter referred to as the exit check-post) of the State to be crossed by the vehicle and the time and date up to which it should be so crossed and deliver two copies of the authorization for transit to the driver or person in-charge of the vehicle retaining one copy himself. (3) The driver or person in-charge of the vehicle shall stop his vehicle at such exit check-post, surrender one copy of the authorization for transit of goods and allow the officer in-charge of the check-post to inspect the documents, consignments and goods in order to ensure that the consignment being taken out of the State is the same as mentioned in the trip sheet. The officer in-charge of the exit check-post shall issue a receipt on the other copy of the authorization for transit of goods. The officer in-charge of the exit check-post shall issue a receipt on the other copy of the authorization for transit of goods. (4) The officer in-charge of the exit check-post shall have power to detain, unload and search contents of the vehicle for the purpose of detecting evasion of tax. (5) The Commissioner may from time to time issue instruction with regard to the procedure to be followed regarding issue and surrender of authorization for transit of goods." But Shri Alok Kumar states under the new system, all that is required is that the transporter must have a declaration form for the transit of the said goods which, at the point of entry within the State of U.P., after filling in the details of the goods, the destination of the goods and the route, etc., has to be downloaded from the official website of the Department. The transporter must carry the same with the goods throughout the time that they are within the State. A condition has also been imposed that the said goods must cross the State of U.P. within four days, otherwise, adverse inference would be drawn. It is not in dispute that the applicant obtained the transit declaration form No. 200900161890 for trans-shipment of 280 packets covered under 28 G.R. and 28 bills from Delhi to Maharashtra, from the departmental website in accordance with the circular and all the information required in the form was duly filled. The said goods while in transit was intercepted by the mobile squad. The goods were detained and a show-cause notice was issued in respect of consignments covered under G.R. Nos. 27975 and 27981, that they did not tally the description of the goods upon physical verification as against mentioned in the bills. The explanation given by the assessee was not accepted and the goods were seized and the authorities demanded Rs. 91,812 as security for release of the goods. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid seizure, a representation was made under section 48(7) of the Value Added Tax Act to the Joint Commissioner, Agra for release of the goods without security. The Joint Commissioner by its order dated September 14, 2009 affirmed the seizure. An appeal under section 57 of the Value Added Tax Act was preferred before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Agra. The Joint Commissioner by its order dated September 14, 2009 affirmed the seizure. An appeal under section 57 of the Value Added Tax Act was preferred before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Agra. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record granted some reliefs to the applicant by reducing the quantum of penalty to the extent of liability of tax, and for determination of the same, remanded the matter back to the assessing authority. Dissatisfied by the order of the Tribunal, the present revision has been filed. Shri Alok Kumar has vehemently urged that without there being any amendment in the Value Added Tax Act, the State Government has abolished the check-post in order to felicitate easy transit of the goods which only pass through the State of U.P. and for such transit of the goods out of the State the only requirement is, that a duly filled up transit form should be downloaded from the official website of the Department and should accompany the goods all the time, and the goods must pass out of the State within four days. He submitted that minor/negligent variation in the quantity of goods and certain discrepancies regarding non-mention of the consignor and consignee cannot be a basis for presumption that the goods were meant to be sold within the State of U.P., nor the same can be determinative of the fact that there was any intention of the dealer to evade tax. The argument of the learned counsel is that it is not the case of the Department anywhere that the said goods were found to be unloaded within the territory of U.P. or the truck was not on the designated route or it remained within the territory of U.P. beyond four days, and therefore, the presumption drawn by the authorities is not in consonance with law. The main ground for disbelieving the explanation of the applicant is that the goods covered by builties No. 27975 were electrical goods, but on verification, tube-lights, switches and sockets were found and builty No. 27981, which was auto gas kit, upon verification, the said gas kit was disassembled and each of its component, was treated to be separate goods. The main ground for disbelieving the explanation of the applicant is that the goods covered by builties No. 27975 were electrical goods, but on verification, tube-lights, switches and sockets were found and builty No. 27981, which was auto gas kit, upon verification, the said gas kit was disassembled and each of its component, was treated to be separate goods. Further it was held that the name of the consignor and consignee have not been correctly indicated, and therefore, merely on the aforesaid ground specially when there is no material available on record to indicate that the said goods were found to be unloaded within the territory of U.P. or in any way being meant for sale within the territory of U.P., the seizure of the goods are illegal and the same must be released forthwith without demanding any security. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that after the abolition of check-post a duty has been cast upon the transporter itself to give correct description of goods and its quantity by filling the relevant form and then downloading the same from the official website of the Department. Upon physical verification, discrepancy was found, therefore, the presumption has validly been drawn that the said goods in transit were, in fact, meant for sale within the territory of U.P., and therefore, the security demanded is valid and in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, this cannot be a ground in view of the latest decision of this court in the case Madhya Bharat Transport Carrier, Agra v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow reported in [2006] 143 STC 493; [2003] 23 NTN 1009, wherein it has been held that it is wholly irrelevant whether the consignor or consignee is traceable or not. All that is required to be seen is whether the goods have actually been brought from outside of U.P. and taken outside of U.P., and the papers along with goods must tally with the description of the goods. I am in full agreement with the aforesaid decision, and therefore, I am of the opinion that the goods cannot be seized on the grounds that have been mentioned in the order of seizure. I am in full agreement with the aforesaid decision, and therefore, I am of the opinion that the goods cannot be seized on the grounds that have been mentioned in the order of seizure. The Tribunal has accepted the fact that the goods are meant to be transported outside the State of U.P. and has also granted relief by reducing the demand of security. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and the cases cited, I am of the opinion that the seizure of the goods made on suspicious presumption renders such a seizure arbitrary, and therefore, the Tribunal erred in law in only reducing the quantum of security for the release of the goods. According to me the seizure itself being invalid, the goods ought to have been released without security. Under circumstances, the authorities are directed to release the goods forthwith. However, while releasing the goods, the authorities may take all precautions whatever they may feel necessary to ensure that the goods cross the State of U.P. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated September 26, 2009 is set aside and as directed the authorities shall release the seized goods forthwith without any security.